More reports emerge of potential plans for a third ‘Hobbit’ film from Peter Jackson

Peter Jackson may have seemed slightly reluctant to return to Middle-Earth before he began production on “The Hobbit,” but now that he’s actually in the process, it looks like he’s having a harder time letting go.

When our own Katie Hasty talked to Jackson during Comic-Con, I didn’t really take the idea of a third “Hobbit” film seriously, even when he discussed how it might work and how he was starting to think about it. Richard Armitage also broached the subject with us, but It seemed like one of those idle thoughts that wouldn’t really pan out into something real. Now it appears that talks are becoming more serious about the possibility of expanding this into a trilogy, and that’s sure to spark debate, with both pro and con making equal sense to me.

On the one hand, “The Hobbit” has always struck me as a totally different beast than “Lord Of The Rings.” Yes, they take place in the same world, and yes, they share characters and there is some narrative connection between them, but they seem to work in entirely different ways. “Lord Of The Rings” always struck me as the biggest of big meals, an amazing trip through one of the pivotal moments in an imagined history. “The Hobbit” struck me more as an adventure story, contained and personal, and while the stakes obviously matter to everyone in the story, Bilbo included, they are not apocalyptic, with the entire fate of Middle-Earth at risk.

The overwhelming reaction today has been negative. I see many people, even fans of Jackson’s “Rings” films, talk about how they can’t imagine what material there is to support a third film. Jackson and his co-writers, Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens, have been talking since the early days of development about how they have always viewed the Appendices as Tolkien’s notes on how he might go back to expand “The Hobbit” so that it would fit more tonally with “Lord Of The Rings.” There are all sorts of character and story notes, details that flesh out things that were merely mentioned in passing in the book, as well as history that informed the events Tolkien wrote about.

For example, in the footage I saw at Comic-Con, there was a sequence that I described that appears to take place inside Dol Guldur, Sauron’s home in Mirkwood. This is suggested in the material that mentions the Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his encounter with the White Council, but it appears Jackson and his collaborators have chosen to make the material explicit now.

In the video embedded above, you can see Jackson talk about an additional round of shooting that would have to take place next year to take what they’ve already shot and build it into a third film that works alone. As he says in that piece, the discussion is definitely happening, but no final decision has been made. The article in today’s LA Times basically just confirms everything Jackson said directly to us, but it sounds like the business end of things is where the uncertainty lies right now. They’ll have to work out an enormous amount of scheduling issues and salary negotiations, since no one was planning for a third film. You can’t just take the extra footage that was shot and cut an entirely new movie out of it because of contracts. The Salkinds used to do things like that, and they did it specifically so they could screw their actors and filmmakers. Here, it seems like Jackson’s motivated more by the way the material is coming together than anything else, and while I’m sure it will be a huge financial windfall for Warner Bros and New Line, who already have somewhere in the neighborhood of a half-billion dollars sunk in these movies, I think it’s also a sign of faith in what they’ve seen so far from Jackson.

We’ll have more on this as the deal comes together, and if it does end up happening, we’ll be sure to do our best to let you know what the plan is.
“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” will be in theaters December 14, 2012.

Join The Discussion: Log In With

I hate this idea. The appendices are interesting, but not enough to warrant turning a simple tale like The Hobbit into 3 movies (I thought 2 movies was pushing it!). Too bad they can’t get the rights to the Silmarillion, that could make for some intriguing prequel films.
I will see The Hobbit part 1 for one….if they truly do split the second one into two, I might just end up watching the middle on on BluRay the day before part 3 comes out. And this is coming from someone who has a Tolkien tattoo, and whose favorite movie ever is LOTR.

By: evolution1085

07.25.2012 @ 3:57 AM

It’s not even the blatant cash grab that the execs will sign off that makes this off putting… it’s the fact that they’re taking this film and telling its story over what’s going to amount to 2.5 years most likely. Cramming every little detail into a story doesn’t make you better storytellers. Plus, we’ve all seen that there’s a market for the extended editions of LOTR related material, so make two moneys and load up the extended cuts with all this extra footage, and those versions will be the ones fan’s will embrace as gospel.

By: John

07.25.2012 @ 4:58 AM

I really wish he’d just leave it at two films. Sounds like its all becoming needlessly complex and extravagant. I always loved the hobbit because it was so simple.

By: gracie

07.25.2012 @ 5:42 AM

Please don’t. The Hobbit isn’t like LOTR where you need 3 movies to tell the story. 2 movies is plenty.

By: Eyes

07.25.2012 @ 8:00 AM

HOBBIT 3: ARE WE THERE YET? Count me out.

By: Scudman

07.25.2012 @ 8:10 AM

Jackson’s a smart guy, he wouldn’t do this unless it was for another great movie. I trust him. If it was WB making this happen, I’d be worried.

By: goodhorse

07.27.2012 @ 4:28 AM

Scudman is right, even though I have reservations about dragging out the Hobbit into three films.

Jackson has earned the right to be trusted – given his track record, if he has managed to weld some interesting Tolkein stuff on to the Hobbit story then it will only enhance the movie experience.

By: BdubU

07.25.2012 @ 11:09 AM

I hate to say it but my trust in PJ is waning given the never-ending ending of ROTK, followed by somehow managing to bloat Kong into a 3 hour movie. I was dubious that the Hobbit should be two movies, let alone three. I wonder if there is someone in PJs camp willing to say “Dude, enough already. The mantra has always been leave them wanting more.”

By: Eyes

07.25.2012 @ 1:10 PM

I’ll bet there are as many people willing to say that at Weta as there are to George Lucas at LucasFilm.

Drew is almost certainly right: the only thing stopping this being a done deal is the contractual obligation to make two movies. Jackson’s pitch will be: ‘well, you can pull another $4-500 mil if you spend $100 mil more on post, marketing and legal’. Is there 50% more story to tell? No. Is there a giant fanbase to milk? Yes.

By: Monty Jack

07.25.2012 @ 1:21 PM

They’re extending a book that’s, what, 300 pages into a TRILOGY of three-hour movies?! That’s, what, fifteen minutes devoted to every page?

CASH. GRAB.

By: Ryan

07.25.2012 @ 1:33 PM

“That’s, what, fifteen minutes devoted to every page”

Sure, if you leave out the decimal point :)

By: normangunston

07.25.2012 @ 1:43 PM

Jackson’s had a bad case of gigantitis since ROTK and this disastrous decision (if it’s made) just underlines it for me. After all that fine talk during the original trilogy of “respecting Tolkien’s intentions”?! PJ, there’s a reason Tolkien never finished revising The Hobbit with LOTR in mind: IT’S A BAD IDEA.

By: Franko

07.25.2012 @ 1:48 PM

everyone should get two things clear: 1) they are NOT talking of stretching The Hobbit into three movies. it will be done in two. that has already been established; and 2) there is PLENTY of material in the appendices to cover a third movie, and they’ve talked about this before. this is the “bridge” idea between The Hobbit and Fellowship books, and they can cover all of aragorn and gandalf’s activities in those years: how they met, aragorn’s time in gondor and rhohan, the hunt for gollum, on and on. it’s perfect.

By: BRob

07.25.2012 @ 1:59 PM

Franko, you are the first person to speak sense here in this thread.

No one has EVER said that The Hobbit will be split into three. Just the usual knee jerk, cynical internet reactions…

By: normangunston

07.25.2012 @ 2:52 PM

Surely the SW prequels & Prometheus dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s on why it’s a terrible, terrible idea to create a “bridging” narrative to something that already exists? The Hobbit stands alone, fine, but I fear this trilogy will become a collection of “where’s wally”-style moments setting up LOTR beats.

If the modern day Jackson was making LOTR now you sense that not only would we see Tom Bombadil, he’d probably get his own spin-off movie…

By: BRob

07.25.2012 @ 3:02 PM

Tell that to Tolkein, who actually did it in the Unfinished Tales. It was thwe original author who sought to tie the events of The Hobbit to LOTR. And I wish people would stop bringing up the SW prequels. Instead of whining about how not to do it, why don’t people consider who it might be done? There are a lot of reasons why the SW prequels mostly failed.

By: Franko

07.25.2012 @ 3:09 PM

what i don’t understand is, why are people COMPLAINING that jackson might get to do another tolkien movie?? this is GOOD NEWS, people. it will be the last one, because they don’t own any rights to anything else. i’m thrilled that he might get to flesh out more of middle earth.

By: BRob

07.25.2012 @ 3:13 PM

Absolutely! The instant reaction these days is to complain about something that has the potential to be amazing – some people create whole personalities around that,which I find appalling. Movies are a gift. If they don’t work, move on to the next one. Focus on the good instead of always whining about what you didn’t like. Far too many people forget what makes movies great and take so much for granted.

By: Ryan J

07.25.2012 @ 2:06 PM

Um, Drew, I agree with everything you said about this, but…

MAJOR SPOILERS about you know who being in Dol Guldor. I think the production has been trying to keep that under wraps for people who’ve never read the books.

By: evolution1085

07.25.2012 @ 2:25 PM

Spoilers shouldn’t apply to something that has been available for mass consumption for 75 years. That’s like saying “spoiler: rosebud is the sled” or “spoiler: that adolf hitler guy, he’s gonna turn out to be a bad egg”

By: BRob

07.25.2012 @ 3:16 PM

No way. If folks want to hear a story from one particular medium, then it should not be spoiled for them.

By: evolution1085

07.25.2012 @ 3:54 PM

Would have loved to see the spoiler warnings for the passion of the Christ “spoiler, it’s really not going to go well for that Jesus guy”

By: Ryan J

07.25.2012 @ 5:22 PM

@Evolution1085

We have a difference of opinions. You don’t have to get snarky about it.

Furthermore, the books may have been around for a long time, but how many people have honestly read the appendices? Or have actually read Fellowship (i.e. note seen the movie but actually read the book)? That bit of information is only well known amongst longtime snd hardcore Tolkien fan, so it would have been a surprise to casual viewers who only know the film trilogy.

By: evolution1085

07.25.2012 @ 7:02 PM

Not sure if you’re aware, but the currency of the internet is snark.

Spoiler warnings were developed for people who had access to things before they were available to the general audience for mass consumption (ie what the guys at AICN used to do, or critics who get screeners and were willing to share that info with the people who were willing to indulge themselves). Now, people complain about discussions of shows/movies/books that have been out for days/months/years because THEY HAVEN’T GOTTEN AROUND TO IT YET. If something is available for decades at this point, and you’ve decided that the only way you want to consume this story is through a cinematic telling (which is sad because the books are masterfully written), then it needs to be on that person to avoid any discussions, not have people who read the books a couple dozen times over the course of 3/4 of a century have to self-censor not to ruin the experience for somebody else.

By: BRob

07.25.2012 @ 8:08 PM

Would you say that about something like Harry Potter? Or Game of Thrones. Have a little respect for other people. Or the Millenium trilogy? If someone went and spoiled a classic film for me, I’d be as entitled as anyone to get a rage on. Stories exist to be told. It doesn’t matter WHEN they are told, just to long as they are told. No one is saying anything about saying nothing about a story, just a little fair warning.

By: Steve

07.26.2012 @ 1:55 PM

Dorothy Gets Back to Kansas and it was all a dream, Rhett walks out on Scarlett, Tony gets killed by Chino at the end of West Side Story
The Vontrapps escape Austria with the help of the nuns

….stop me when you’ve become enraged.

By: BRob

07.26.2012 @ 2:03 PM

If all you can do is take the piss instead of coming up with a decent argument then piss off back to kindergarten.

By: Robin

07.27.2012 @ 6:27 PM

I’ll briefly wade in to this.

I think Steve and Evo have valid points. The books have been around for decades. If you cared enough about the world you experienced in the movies, then you have easy access to the books to find out more.

More to the point, I don’t think Drew’s comment was a spoiler. Anyone who had ONLY seen the LOTR movies will honestly not know what the heck he’s talking about. Except for the name Sauron, those names are completely meaningless without more context, which Drew didn’t give. It’s not like he said “when Bilbo dies.*” I only know what he’s talking about because I’ve read the Hobbit and large sections of the Silmarillion.

*I’m not saying Bilbo dies.

I’m about as spoiler-averse as they come, but I just don’t think Drew crossed any lines with this one.

By: Dave I

07.25.2012 @ 3:52 PM

I can give Peter Jackson the benefit of a doubt. In this case, having read the book but not the appendices, I am totally fine with it provided there is enough material and it works well enough to make it worthwhile. Plus, the story is simple enough that I think you can add to it (from the appendices, not just making stuff up for the sake of doing it) without muddling it up too much and make a pretty definitive version of the story. I hope Jackson looks at the material and does what he thinks is best with it.

So more power to him. As long as it’s good, I do not see any reason why this is a bad idea, so why not?

-Cheers

By: Ryan J

07.25.2012 @ 3:59 PM

Well, 2 things come to mind.

1. No one has said this will be a third “Hobbit” film. If he’s going to adapt stuff from the LOTR Appendices, there is plenty of material that can act as a standalone narrative.

2. No one has said JAckson and CO are going to restructure this franchise. At least, we all hope he won’t. The Hobbit (with the added material about Gandalf and the White COuncil confronting the Necromancer) can easily make up 2 films. 3 films would be a stretch, to say the least.

I just hope the originally planned 2 films contain all the events that took place in the Hobbit. If there is a third film, let that be a bridge film between the Hobbit and LOTR.

By: MarkP

07.25.2012 @ 4:00 PM

2 three-hour movies (c’mon, you know Jackson won’t be able to stop himself) to tell The Hobbit is ridiculous enough. I can read the whole book in 6 hours.

Just stop, Peter.

By: Mark

07.25.2012 @ 5:45 PM

The LOTR trilogy is sacred in my eyes. I’m such a fan of Jackson, I didn’t mind his self indulgent King Kong. I thought The Lovely Bones was a noble failure. But even I am wincing at the notion of The Hobbit as 3 films. Does LOTR and The Hobbit really need a bridge? And if there is enough content at this point to create a third self contained movie with just a couple extra months of shooting, it makes me question the narrative structure of the first two movies. I’m concerned that that the story is getting lost in the desire to flesh out every nook and cranny left in Peter Jackson’s imagination, and not in a good way. I’m usually much more optimistic about Creative Minds who I admire. This time I’m siding with the naysayers.

By: cory mccoy

07.25.2012 @ 7:05 PM

I have a better idea! Let’s have a Gandalf and the Istari solo film :D

By: Steve

07.26.2012 @ 2:50 AM

Hilarious. 1) Movies are not books. They’re a different medium. Screenwriters and novelists understand this, but clearly the public dos not. (Neither does Tolkien’s etate, either)

2) If PJ has someone write an adapted screenplay, and that screenplay is well done and is different from the book itself, whether i’s using the appendices or just making things up, then that’s fine. The book is the book. The movie is the movie. TWO DIFFERENT mediums, folks. The way we experience a movie is very, very different then a book. Good grief. It’s SO frustrating to hear people complain about parts of the movie that re differen from the book, as if screenwriting is simpy a matter of transferring scenes from one to the other.

By: EmptyGal

07.26.2012 @ 12:55 PM

So many have posted why this is a bad idea. Sure, I wouldn’t mind more Thorin and Beorn, but at what cost? If they do shoot a third film, I’ll probably sit the latter two out again and just wait to rent as I did Rings (which bored me to pieces.) I quite enjoy the Hobbit novel, but two films ia already too much and frankly, I resent the bridge to LoTR beyond Gandalf and Gollum.